Slashdot Mirror


Cycling To Work Can Cut Cancer and Heart Disease (bbc.com)

randomErr quotes a report from BBC: Want to live longer? Reduce your risk of cancer? And heart disease? Then cycle to work, say scientists. The five-year study of 250,000 UK commuters also showed walking had some benefits over sitting on public transport or taking the car. Published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) today, the University of Glasgow study compared those who had an "active" commute with those who were mostly stationary. Overall, 2,430 of those studied died, 3,748 were diagnosed with cancer and 1,110 had heart problems. But, during the course of the study, regular cycling cut the risk of death from any cause by 41%, the incidence of cancer by 45% and heart disease by 46%. The cyclists clocked an average of 30 miles per week, but the further they cycled the greater the health boon. However, the effect was still there even after adjusting the statistics to remove the effects of other potential explanations like smoking, diet or how heavy people are.

233 comments

  1. who knew by Osgeld · · Score: 5, Funny

    news at 11, exercise leads to better health

    now take your bike and shove it up your ass, my work is 30 miles away, its fucking hot in my part of the world and there are a lot of hills

    1. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It does however increase the risk of being hit by a car and getting a horrible head injury so maybe not perfect.

    2. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My job is 20 miles and 4 valleys away. To add to that a vehicle "in good working order and an acceptable license" are required as a term of my employment. I guess I will have to stick to just using the stairs while I'm there and skip the bicycle trip in.

    3. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I'd move closer. That or hit the gym on the way home!

    4. Re: who knew by tepples · · Score: 1

      My job is 20 miles and 4 valleys away. To add to that a vehicle "in good working order and an acceptable license" are required as a term of my employment.

      I can think of a few environmentalist cranks who would encourage people in such a situation to get a different job.

    5. Re:who knew by msauve · · Score: 1

      Exercise? I work at home, you insensitive clod. Biking to work isn't exercise.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:who knew by Darinbob · · Score: 0

      Used to have some coworkers pressuring me to join the cycling cult. Never mind that I hadn't been on a bike in twenty years, was 10 miles away, and heavy traffic most of the distance, they would be utterly convinced that it was perfect for a beginner. I also saw one of them on the road riding her bike in the most dangerous way and never stopping at signs. I was getting exercise at the time, it just wasn't cycling so I don't understand the "join us!" attitude of those damned militants.

    7. Re: who knew by corychristison · · Score: 1

      I work from home as well.

      It really helps to keep a routine when you work from home. I walk my kids to school when it's nice out (too cold most of the winter), and their not on holidays.

      During the summer, while my kids are not in school, it's much more difficult. I think the worst part is the constant feeling that I have to work on all stuff outdoors. Today, in between some scheduled calls, I fixed a gate on my fence, laid tarps over my veggie garden to stop weeds from germinating, and lubed up the parts that need lube on my bicycle.

      I find it much easier to work in the evenings anyway, so that's when I get the majority of my work done.

    8. Re:who knew by antdude · · Score: 1

      Poor donkey! :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    9. Re:who knew by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Excuses, excuses. Perhaps you should have thought about moving closer to your job, or getting a job closer to your home, so that you could make a daily bike ride a part of your exercise routine.

      If you have one.

    10. Re:who knew by xevioso · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless, the article is a good one. Biking daily is good for you. I commute to work on a bike, and it generally feels great.

    11. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. I live in a "depressed area" where petrol-heads roam. Anyone riding a bike around here becomes a target.

    12. Re: who knew by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I walk my kids to school when it's nice out (too cold most of the winter)

      Unless it get's to -60C where you are, it's not too cold. You're just putting comfort in front of health and rationalizing it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re: who knew by hawguy · · Score: 1

      My job is 20 miles and 4 valleys away. To add to that a vehicle "in good working order and an acceptable license" are required as a term of my employment.

      I can think of a few environmentalist cranks who would encourage people in such a situation to get a different job.

      Or live closer to work.

    14. Re: who knew by corychristison · · Score: 1

      Do you count the "Windchill Factor"? If so, yes it does get to -60C, and -45C without.

      Besides, it's not MY comfort, its my childrens comfort. Seeing as they are both under 10, theit bodies can not handle the cold nearly as well as I can. Personally, I rather enjoy the cold.

      Boy Slashdot is full of a bunch of ignorant pricks lately.

    15. Re: who knew by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      No. But if you want, you can always stack the -43C with the -68C windchill that I went through this winter and my nephews and nieces. And that type of weather was the same type of weather I went through as a kid, under 10. I even fondly remember the -35C days when we'd go outside and play in it. Even those days when we were still required to go outside for things like recess in that cold weather.

      Oops. How are you enjoying that ignorance?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    16. Re: who knew by corychristison · · Score: 1

      Looking through your post history, you're in Ontario.

      I know for a fact that Ontario never stays that cold, I don't care how north you are. A couple of days, maybe, then you're done.

      Come try a Saskatchewan winter on for size.

    17. Re:who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now take your bike and shove it up your ass

      Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You want to die, go right ahead. Not my problem.

    18. Re:who knew by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Good for you. I used to jog every day. I NEVER felt great after jogging. It was always a chore and it never got easier. If some people feel great after biking then good for them, they are lucky. But they should never browbeat others to join their cult.

    19. Re:who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I built a pedelec electric bike based on a piece-of-shit bottom-drawer mountain bike frame. It's *awesome* fun and the assistance from the motor is such that you really don't notice how much exercise you're actually getting until you find that you can't walk for a day or two after doing 100km or so in variable terrain. I'd seriously recommend going for hydraulic brakes, though. The bike is heavier, and you tend to travel a lot faster than you might otherwise.

      I'm fifty-five years old, I live in a very hilly area, and I'd never have considered cycling as a means of transports with the electric option.

    20. Re:who knew by eneville · · Score: 1

      This. The thread is full of excuses. To make matters worse, the excuses for doing nothing to help ones own health means that people are happy to run the risk of earlier than needed death whilst also adding to global warming. Also, with that shorter life, you're spending the majority of the working day couped up in a car.

      Using a bike to work is a great way of turning that commute into exercise, you arrive on the premise with a better level of dopamine and adrenaline, but that time went towards extending your pension years.

    21. Re:who knew by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      You don't have to bike the entire way. Maybe leave your car at a parking lot a few miles from your house or your work and then ride the bike back and forth between the parking lot?

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    22. Re:who knew by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There's still e-bikes, though. You can adjust your energy expenditure and effort on these to suit you even for a longer distance.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    23. Re:who knew by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Put an exercise bike between your bedroom and your study?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    24. Re: who knew by telchine · · Score: 1

      Pedestrians are slightly more likely to suffer a head injury than cyclists per mile travelled.

      Car drivers are more likely to be hit by a car than cyclists in general. (Cyclists more likely per mile travelled, but generally they use safer transport like trains for longer distances)

      Cyclists overall live much longer lives. So any head injury risk is completely outweighed by the risk of cardiac arrest, cancer, suicide caused by depression, getting stuck in a doorway and starving to death cos you're too fat, etc, etc

    25. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My job is 20 miles and 4 valleys away. To add to that a vehicle "in good working order and an acceptable license" are required as a term of my employment. I guess I will have to stick to just using the stairs while I'm there and skip the bicycle trip in.

      Do you actually have to use that vehicle during the course of your work, or can you leave it at home?

      Whilst it's not actually a term of employment, I've noticed that a lot of companies don't like hiring people who don't drive. One even incredulously asked me "how I'm going to get to work in the mornings?!"... I'd walked from the train station to the interview, there was a footpath that went straight there, whereas the road route was three miles around, but they thought that a 1 mile walk was an insurmountable distance to do every day.

      At my current workplace, I told them I have a driving licence and I'm "between cars" (I don't have a licence". I crrently run the 10 miles to work each morning, get showered and sit and wait at my desk whilst everyone else sends texts and emails saying how terrible the traffic is and they're going to be late in.

      I moved into the area from another town, I deliberately chose to live that far away from work because it's a good training distance for marathon running which I do a couple of times a year. If I were still a cyclist, 20 miles with a few hills inbetween would be perfect for me. Great training

    26. Re:who knew by Max_W · · Score: 1

      A human can cycle 557 miles (896 km) per day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      30 miles is just a light warming for a strong cyclist.

    27. Re: who knew by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Good thing you're showing your ignorance. I wouldn't want to let things like "the ability to move" or "having to work elsewhere." Why don't you come try a northern alberta winter on for size? You can even have a place right in the foothills of the mountains, enjoy the sudden 4ft snowfalls in a 18hrs period to boot. Just a useful tip: You have between 4 days and 2 weeks before the first blast of winter hits in middle to late September or sometimes early October when the first white show up on the peaks. Also, I hope you enjoy isolation because it's 6hrs in any direction to a major city. Hospital services? Well, just hope they can fly a copter in to get you. And try to avoid the spring melts, because well they like to wash out the highways and strand you for a couple of weeks. You should take some food with you too, normally 60 days is enough. Oh, and when the winds knock out the power? You'd best make sure you stocked up on firewood. Otherwise you're going to be either living at the mall or the city/firehall for the next couple of weeks. Because otherwise you're going to freeze to death.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    28. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now that's true. -43 celsius is siberian cold. Unless you're swede or canadian anything below -10 is rather unpleasant.

    29. Re:who knew by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The thread is full of excuses.

      Most people can't afford to live closer to work. They wouldn't save enough money to live closer even if they didn't commute by car. That is in fact the primary reason they live far enough away to where they can't bike, and have to commute by car to begin with. It's all well and good to snark about "excuses" but some of these things are explanations, not excuses. Our whole society is designed to be self-deflagrating, and calling it "excuses" when people complain about that is, in short, a dick move that won't win you any friends.

      Note that I have never had a commute longer than about fifteen minutes, so I'm not making excuses for myself, either. I'm trying to help you understand how the world works, even though you're willfully ignorant.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    30. Re: who knew by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I can think of a few environmentalist cranks who would encourage people in such a situation to get a different job.

      They are cranks, because jobs worth having are scarce these days. Even if I worked for Exxon I wouldn't be giving that shit up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a study about this and you are wrong. Risk to die is lower on cycling than it is at home.

    32. Re: who knew by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Pedestrians are slightly more likely to suffer a head injury than cyclists per mile travelled.

      Car drivers are more likely to be hit by a car than cyclists in general. (Cyclists more likely per mile travelled, but generally they use safer transport like trains for longer distances)

      Cyclists overall live much longer lives. So any head injury risk is completely outweighed by the risk of cardiac arrest, cancer, suicide caused by depression, getting stuck in a doorway and starving to death cos you're too fat, etc, etc

      All true, but it is still fact that the more you cycle, the more likely it is to injure or kill you.

    33. Re: who knew by minogully · · Score: 1

      A colleague of mine bikes 22 miles to work (44 round trip). Distance isn't a limiting factor, but time is. If you don't have the time in the day to bike that distance, then I'd agree that you can't do it.

      Time is an issue for me, and I live about the same distance away as my friend. So what I do is drive part way, park the car then cycle the rest of the way. It takes the same amount of time as the bus, I don't have to pay for parking, AND I get a free 1.5 hour workout every day.

    34. Re: who knew by corychristison · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you just did a bunch of research on the colder places in Canada.

      Your post history, literally from the last day or two hours, indicates you're in Ontario.

      Living in a small town in Saskatchewan, I experience what you've described every year. Year after year. The only difference is I have a relatively decent sized center about 40 minutes away.

      I built my own business up from nothing, specifically so I wouldn't have to move away from here, because one of the few things I actually enjoy here is the cold winters. Some other great things: tons of snow in winter, lots of light in summer (to grow my own food), low population densities, super fast internet (thank you gov't owned fiber network), no daylight saving time, and so on and so forth. The only thing I don't like is our current Provincial Government, but they'll be voted out in 3 years.

      Fact is, -40 and colder sucks and because I'm not a sadist, I don't make my kids walk to school in it. -10? -20? Not a problem. That weather is quite enjoyable, in my opinion. Even into the -30s if there is no wind, but living in the flattest part of the country means there is usually wind.

    35. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All true, but it is still fact that the more you cycle, the more likely it is to injure or kill you.

      Ttrue, but it is still fact that the more you drive a car, the more likely it is to injure or kill you.

    36. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My job is 20 miles and 4 valleys away. To add to that a vehicle "in good working order and an acceptable license" are required as a term of my employment.

      I can think of a few environmentalist cranks who would encourage people in such a situation to get a different job.

      Or live closer to work.

      Because moving every time you change jobs is so practical plus everyone knows that people never get reassigned to another office or laid off shortly after moving just to be closer to work.

      That and if I lived 4 miles from work instead of 16 my house payments (or rent) would be at least double what it is where I live a couple towns over and on the other side of the county line.

    37. Re:who knew by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess the moral of the story for you is: suffer or die.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    38. Re:who knew by eneville · · Score: 1

      The thread is full of excuses.

      Most people can't afford to live closer to work. They wouldn't save enough money to live closer even if they didn't commute by car. That is in fact the primary reason they live far enough away to where they can't bike, and have to commute by car to begin with. It's all well and good to snark about "excuses" but some of these things are explanations, not excuses. Our whole society is designed to be self-deflagrating, and calling it "excuses" when people complain about that is, in short, a dick move that won't win you any friends.

      Note that I have never had a commute longer than about fifteen minutes, so I'm not making excuses for myself, either. I'm trying to help you understand how the world works, even though you're willfully ignorant.

      Really? So it's too expensive to get a train and then commute by cycle from station to door then?

      In this country (where the study was performed) the driver is almost taxed off the road by MOT, Vehicle Excise Duty, fuel duty, insurance then there's the car parking fees in the cities after that (assuming you can park freely at home), plus running costs, all of which would include VAT at some stage also. You could negate just the vehicle excise duty with the cost of the bike alone, before you start talking all the other costs. It's not much more expensive to move a little closer to work or even cycle one or two days of the week and leave a car behind for just those couple of days. You wont save much money doing just that, perhaps move the insurance down one bracket at most.

      Or of course, don't be so picky about your work and find something closer to home, then you don't have to re-mortgage and pay the stamp duty just to move premises.

    39. Re:who knew by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Really? So it's too expensive to get a train and then commute by cycle from station to door then?

      It depends largely on where you live. In the USA, it's infeasible for most people because there's no train. The trains we do have are either grossly underutilized (and therefore grossly overpriced) or grossly overutilized (and therefore simply gross.)

      You could negate just the vehicle excise duty with the cost of the bike alone, before you start talking all the other costs.

      Here in the USA, we tend to pay about 8% tax or less once on our automobiles. In California, we have an emissions test bi-annually after I think the first four years of ownership, or on transfer of title to a non-family member, except in non-smog-controlled counties. Most of those are around the border of the northern end of the state, and relatively unpopulated. Then we only smog on transfer of title. The emissions test costs forty to around a hundred and twenty bucks, depending on whether you need a dyno test and whether you're getting screwed over. There is no safety inspection. Only a couple of states have them, and they are quite half-assed at best. Registration must be renewed yearly and ranges from about sixty dollars for an old beater up to maybe three hundred bucks for a pickup truck, which California claims to be a commercial vehicle whether you use it as such or not for the purpose of extracting money from your wallet. This wouldn't be so bad if they spent it on environmental impact mitigation, but they don't. They just spend it. Still, none of it is very much money, so you're not really saving much in the fees department.

      Or of course, don't be so picky about your work and find something closer to home, then you don't have to re-mortgage and pay the stamp duty just to move premises.

      In most of the world, there's really not a surplus of jobs right now. Suggesting that people should change their jobs so that they don't need to drive is not really very realistic. Our whole culture is designed to make them do that if they want to have things. I just saw a statistic that claimed that over sixty million American drivers would have to go into debt to make a median-cost car repair which translates to around six or eight hundred dollars. These people aren't looking to make major lifestyle changes right now. They're just trying to hold on. They can't afford economic instability.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    40. Re:who knew by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      ...except biking to work is not the ONE AND ONLY OPTION. There are a wide variety of ways to get exercise,

      I am also highly skeptical of any study that claims that there aren't diminishing returns or risks of overdoing it. I know people that do sports medicine in pro sports. They would find those ideas shocking and dangerous.

      If it smells like propaganda for some other agenda, it probably is. Extreme claims are usually a dead giveaway.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    41. Re:who knew by pr100 · · Score: 1

      ... because nobody has a choice about where they live or work - these things are handed out by the state at birth ...

    42. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you lived closer to work you wouldn't need to pay for a car (fuel, insurance etc) so you would live a longer life AND have more disposable income.

    43. Re:who knew by movdqa · · Score: 1

      I think that bicycling is a great form of exercise though I tried it when I moved here and determined that it was a dangerous way to commute in my area where the speed limits are around 40 and people drive at 55. So my 35-year-old custom-built bicycle (I bought the parts and built it when I used to ride with the Charles River Wheelman) is mainly used for hanging laundry. One other thing about bicycling (and running) on the road. If your area has a lot of auto-related pollution, you could be breathing in far more pollution than you would be if you weren't working out on the road or if you were running or cycling in the woods.

    44. Re:who knew by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      lol just move closer you say

      listen I am not moving closer to an industrial wasteland city packed with assholes just so I can ride my bike to work, I can do that out in the open air where I live, which I do

      but apparently you think I must uproot my entire life JUST to ride a dumbshit bike to work, why? so I can be one of the trendy people living in a 100 sq foot rabbit cage and showing up to work smelling of sweaty asshole and armpit, 20 min late?

      there's a reason people hate cyclist, you have shown just a brief glimpse of why

    45. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riding a bike is much less effort per mile in terms of energy spent and also much less 'impact' on the joints. In theory jogging to work is better cardio but if you hate it and hence never do it then take the 'easy' option of riding a bike...

    46. Re:who knew by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      a few miles from my house is only 25 miles from my work, that helps

    47. Re:who knew by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      a human can eat 60 something hot dogs in 10 min, doesnt mean its a good idea

    48. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think this study applies to pro atheletes who train for many hours per week. We're talking about people who otherwise get zero exercise hrs per week.

      If your physio friends think that 2hrs of bike riding a day is over training I'd suggest they are idiots.

    49. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's OK, stick with your car. Might as well have another donut too.

    50. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so you live longer, can't you read? Your ideology is blinding you to reality.

    51. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you link that study ?

    52. Re:who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ride 75 kms with loads of hills.

      So what was your excuse again?

    53. Re:who knew by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Used to have some coworkers pressuring me to join the cycling cult. Never mind that I hadn't been on a bike in twenty years, was 10 miles away, and heavy traffic most of the distance, they would be utterly convinced that it was perfect for a beginner. I also saw one of them on the road riding her bike in the most dangerous way and never stopping at signs. I was getting exercise at the time, it just wasn't cycling so I don't understand the "join us!" attitude of those damned militants.

      Heavy traffic usually means I can make it home on my bike faster than I could in my car. And that's with stopping at red lights, etc.

    54. Re:who knew by dddux · · Score: 1

      Well, you should feel great as exercise releases dopamine. It is your psychological state that stops you from feeling great. Exercise is too much of a chore for you. Mind you, for most of the people it is a chore, but once you start doing it and especially when you relax afterwards it should feel great. Brain is just chemistry one way or the other. Maybe you suffer from depression and are quite unhappy in general.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
    55. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Children can handle cold better than most adults. Especially babies. You should look it up sometime.

    56. Re:who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would YOU leave your car in some remote parking lot unattended overnight? I think the best solution for people who have long distant commute is just to get the bike out once in awhile, not make up bizarre scenarios for them to get to ride their bike to work.

    57. Re:who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That 30 miles is likely to become 50 because bikes are not allowed on interstate highways.

    58. Re: who knew by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Or live closer to work.

      So you want my wife to live farther from work? We live in a fairly central location between our workplaces.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    59. Re:who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone call this man a waaaahmbulance...

    60. Re: who knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops. How are you enjoying that ignorance?

      WTF are you even talking about? Ignorance about what? That you're stirring shit here for no apparent reason except to be a shitty person? I guess you're curing me of that ignorance. BTW, since you ask, I rather enjoyed it.

    61. Re: who knew by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you're showing your ignorance and making assumptions. Good job. Especially since I just flew back from Alberta, such a hard life. Don't worry, you can come to Ontario take my place and I'll just move back out west. Watch out for the economic crash that's just around the corner and just a useful tip: If you're want to buy a house? Don't. Housing prices here have jumped 70% in less then a year.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  2. cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ANY?

    1. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      ANY?

      Yup, Any.

      Basically some dedicated bicyclists never die.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I understand it, the overall risk of death is reduced 41%, meaning that the benefits of cycling outweigh any of the additional risks.

    3. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by PPH · · Score: 2

      outweigh any of the additional risks

      If that includes getting run over by a transit bus, the benefits must be truly remarkable.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by clovis · · Score: 2

      I had the same reaction ... ANY?
      Here's the actual study: http://www.bmj.com/content/357...

      I'm having some difficulty pulling out the raw numbers from the actual study, so I'll make up some nearly correct number to show the example.
      What they mean is that during the study period of the 250,000 participants, 2,500 died which is 1% risk of death during the study period.
      Of that 250,000 people, 10,000 commuted to work on bicycles. Of the 10,000 cyclists, 59 died for a 41% reduction in risk of death during the study period.

      If we had used two groups, 100,000 people of the general population, about 1,000 would have died during the study period.
      Of a group of 100,000 cyclists, about 590 would have died during the period.

    5. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same as runners, remember someone called Jim fix? Marathonist who died of a heart attack in his 30's running.

    6. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      outweigh any of the additional risks

      If that includes getting run over by a transit bus, the benefits must be truly remarkable.

      You ought to look up "risk" -- few cyclists will be run over by a transit bus. And it's not like a car commute is free of risk.

    7. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My cousin's husband was an avid cyclist. He was hit by a school bus and killed instantly. Transit buses don't have a monopoly on killing cyclists. School buses are good for it too!

    8. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by hawguy · · Score: 1

      My cousin's husband was an avid cyclist. He was hit by a school bus and killed instantly. Transit buses don't have a monopoly on killing cyclists. School buses are good for it too!

      Hey, what a coincidence, my cousin died from the same thing, except she was driving a car, and she didn't die instantly she was initially conscious, but she passed away before rescuers could extricate her from the car.

    9. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by kiviQr · · Score: 1

      b/c biking in a city increases death rates so you do not live long enough? Is that why cancer rates are lower?

    10. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did she not know that cars are only designed for survivable crashes for 35mph driving? (Really. Isn't that pretty crazy?)

    11. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did she not know that cars are only designed for survivable crashes for 35mph driving? (Really. Isn't that pretty crazy?)

      Around here there's a lot of old people ("here" being America, thanks Baby Boomers!) and they just love to populate roads where it's difficult or dangerous to pass. So you won't often exceed 35 mph no matter what the posted speed limit is. After all, they don't have a job they're trying to reach on time, why the hell should anyone else right? And you'll still have to brake on every curve no matter how gentle or how banked. You can coast along that curve at 60 no problem? Well guess what, Gramps over there feels a need to apply his brakes at 35, because by mindlessly braking on every curve no matter what, he is relieved of the horrible burden of even the slightest dynamic thought. Just think, some poor Dept of Transportation bastard worked hard to move all that earth and make that nice banked curve, well that guy feels like a bitch now, dontcha? And "hey genius, it's uphill, give it a lil more gas" is equally alien to them, momentum being such a mysterious force and all.

    12. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he was 52, a heavy smoker, stressful life and fatso. Genetically predetermined. Just skim thru his wikipedia, asshat.

    13. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're all sorry to read about your mental defectiveness. It's too bad you have to take it out on Gramps. Now go see a psychiatrist, otherwise we'll all cheer for your body to be scraped off a road barrier after trying to pass someone else.

    14. Re: cut the risk of death from any cause by 41% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the actual health benefit is probably higher considering that the 41% number includes accidents related to being on the road unprotected while 2 ton metal boxes roll by (and occasionally over) you.

  3. Interesting... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

    regular cycling cut the risk of death from any cause by 41%

    I would have thought it would increase your risk of death by being hit by a car.

    In all seriousness though, people are not really designed for the type of lifestyle we live today in the modern world. We weren't meant to sit all day long and stare at a monitor. It would be interesting to know what cycling to and from work does in regards to stress relief too.

    1. Re: Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only does the risk of an accident increase, but does it really decrease your chance of getting cancer of you are being passed the whole five miles by a steady flow of desiel trucks?

    2. Re: Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can drastically decrease the chance of getting hit by doing little things like obeying stop signs and traffic lights and signalling correctly.

  4. bike to work is healthy and back to home? kkk by elkimr · · Score: 1

    Bike to work is healthy and back to home might be dangerous if you get late according to my wife's rules.

    1. Re:bike to work is healthy and back to home? kkk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your wife's "rules"? What the hell? Tell her to go fuck herself and you grow a pair of testicles. What are you, Norwegian?

    2. Re:bike to work is healthy and back to home? kkk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your wife's "rules"? What the hell? Tell her to go fuck herself and you grow a pair of testicles. What are you, Norwegian?

      What are you - 14 years old?
      No real man would marry a woman who would allow anyone to say "go fuck yourself" to her.
      Have fun raising your retarded offspring, assuming that you are ever actual the biological father, which is less likely among the "grow a pair" crowd.

    3. Re:bike to work is healthy and back to home? kkk by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Bike to work is healthy and back to home might be dangerous if you get late according to my wife's rules.

      What kind of wife do you have that she'd be upset that you're doing something that's healthy?

      Bike commuting doesn't have to make a commute significantly longer, my commute is a bit faster by bike because I can take a shortcut through a park that is inaccessible to cars, and I take a bike bridge over the freeway so I avoid the stop-and-go freeway traffic.

      The surprising thing about a bike commute is how consistent is -- I get to work within 5 minutes of the same amount of time every day, while when I drive and have to be there at a particular time, I have to pad the drive time by 20 minutes to account for unexpected traffic delays.

  5. You may be healthy enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...cycling on the street at rush hour time just to be run over and die by some asshole driving while looking at his / her cellphone (almost happened to me). So much for health benefits cycling to work...

  6. ...while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....while raising your risk of being killed by a car 700%!

  7. It would be... by 101percent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It would be a lot easier if cagers weren't so fucking stupid and inconsiderate assholes. It's friday, so just go to youtube and you can see a million examples of what I'm talking about.

    1. Re:It would be... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      When I was growing up, we were taught to ride out bikes on the sidewalk since it was safer.

    2. Re: It would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was a kid, I was taught to use hand signals and obey traffic laws, which most whiney bikers don't bother doing.
      I was also taught that it's better to yield even when you have the right of way than to "stand up" for your right of way and end up dead.
      I was also taught that if you're moving more than 10mph slower than traffic, you've got no business being on the road... regardless of whether you're on a bike or in a car.

    3. Re:It would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was growing up, we were taught Pluto was a planet.

    4. Re:It would be... by dfghjk · · Score: 2

      Only the intellect of an Anonymous Coward could come up with this. Roads were made for cars and trucks? I suppose that means there were no roads before cars and trucks.

    5. Re:It would be... by 101percent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also clearly ignorant American who has never traveled to another country where bikes are functional and ubiquitous and safe.

    6. Re: It would be... by 101percent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clearly you don't bicycle. I contest that sans "steel protection" you are an idiot if your senses aren't heightened. From this behavior you will quickly learn most drivers are the ones who don't understand how to drive. I've seen it all and it is thoroughly documented. Go Pro mounted cyclists have revealed much in the past few years.

    7. Re:It would be... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Many places, it's illegal to bike on the sidewalk. Cyclists endanger pedestrians.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:It would be... by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Look, roads were made for cars and trucks. If you ride a motorcycle or bicycle on the road, anything that happens to you is your fault. A smart person surrounds himself in steel to protect him from stupid assholes on the road. Only retards think that they don't need it.

      Actually, roads were originally made for (and paid by) cyclists:

      https://www.theguardian.com/en...

      Surrounding yourself in steel doesn't seem to make drivers very safe when 35,000 people a year are killed in car crashes.

    9. Re:It would be... by hawguy · · Score: 2

      When I was growing up, we were taught to ride out bikes on the sidewalk since it was safer.

      Cycling on the sidewalk is much less safe -- most cyclists are hit in intersections, and on a sidewalk every driveway is an intersection, worse, many drivers don't even look before backing out into the sidewalk. Even as a runner I've had many more close calls on the sidewalk with cars pulling out across the sidewalk without looking that when running on the road.

    10. Re:It would be... by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Bikes don't belong around cars. Bike lanes should be only built on the sidewalks, bikers don't pay neither taxes nor fees to have lanes given to them by the idiotic governments. I say hit every bike that is on the road, do it on purpose, run them off the roads even in bike lanes unless it is a *toll road* and they *paid* to take it.

      I don't know how your roads are paid, but around here, local roads are paid almost entirely out of property and sales taxes, and as a cyclist, I pay a lot of money in those taxes. Plus I pay registration fees for my car that's off the road while I'm cycling.

      So it's not at all true that cyclists don't pay for roads -- we don't pay gas taxes, but cyclists cause virtually zero wear and tear on roads, no road ever needs to be repaved because of bike traffic.

    11. Re:It would be... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I was in a small town too, everyone know sidewalks were for pedestrians and bikes. And we went slow, we stopped, we started, we stopped again, etc. We did not ride like modern cyclists with full set of expensive gear trying to make a speed record on the way to work weaving into and out of traffic. The road was much less safe. Even in the city now, the roads are murderous, viewing is bad, speed limit for cars too high, bike lanes too small (and when they aren't the cyclists still want to be far left on the white line for some reason).

    12. Re:It would be... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I know, I know. I am just saying that as a kid a long time ago, in a small town and not a city, that is what we were told to do. We didn't have that many pedestrians in residential areas and there were easy to see. It was easier to see cars backing out of their house driveway from the sidewalk than from the road where all the parked cars block your view. Cyclists meant 95% kids, they were not going full speed like modern tour-de-commute racers. There were ZERO bike lanes.

      The reasoning to be on sidewalks was because it was indeed safer, in that time and place. Today though - NOWHERE is safe for bikes (unless it's a bike-only trail which are very rare).

    13. Re:It would be... by hawguy · · Score: 1

      I was in a small town too, everyone know sidewalks were for pedestrians and bikes. And we went slow, we stopped, we started, we stopped again, etc. We did not ride like modern cyclists with full set of expensive gear trying to make a speed record on the way to work weaving into and out of traffic. The road was much less safe. Even in the city now, the roads are murderous, viewing is bad, speed limit for cars too high, bike lanes too small (and when they aren't the cyclists still want to be far left on the white line for some reason).

      That's the thing about commuter cyclists, they have someplace to go and don't ride like wobbly kids on their first bike.

      There's no reason for speed limits to be too high or bike lanes too narrow, if a city wants biking to be safer, then they can make it safer. The reason why bikes ride out of the bike lane (when it really is a bike lane and not just a shoulder that drivers *think* is a bike lane) is because cars tend to kick debris into the bike lane. A separated bike lane, even with a low curb-like separator) is much safer in the respect since most road debris won't jump the barrier.

    14. Re:It would be... by jeti · · Score: 1

      Roads were made for horse carriages and later paved for bicyclists. Then the car lobby convinced people that they are primarily for cars through a massive press effort.

    15. Re: It would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They clearly designed 30cm of asphalt to be poured just for bikes. Trucks were an afterthought really :)

      You sjw types are amusing. Blinded by your hate. Oblivious to even the simplest truths.

    16. Re:It would be... by eneville · · Score: 1

      Most non-motorways predate the car, so in fact they were "made" for horses and bikes and foot traffic.

    17. Re:It would be... by 101percent · · Score: 1

      The irony is the article is about cycling to work.

    18. Re:It would be... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      As an auto driver who cycles, the part that I've had trouble with, is when the cyclist zips out across a cross street from behind a row of parked cars (and sometimes, heading the wrong way) at full bicycle-speed.

      in dark clothing, after dusk, without proper reflectors or a helmet, naturally

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    19. Re:It would be... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It would be a lot easier if cagers weren't so fucking stupid and inconsiderate assholes. It's friday, so just go to youtube and you can see a million examples of what I'm talking about.

      About 50% of cyclists I pass are doing something stupid, from swerving all over to simply riding out in the middle of the road. And then there's all the times I've been one of more than five vehicles stuck behind a cycle on a minor highway, with them smugly taking up the whole lane in a twisty section. Except the law requires that any vehicle on a highway be pulled over at the first safe opportunity to permit passing when five vehicles are being held up by it (regardless of speed) and for a bicycle it is safe to stop almost anywhere.

      You want to complain about drivers but don't want to take responsibility for your own actions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:It would be... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most non-motorways predate the car, so in fact they were "made" for horses and bikes and foot traffic.

      Modern roads (as you call them, motorways) were in fact made for cars. Here's a hint: if it's paved, and it's got road markings for cars on it, it's designed first and foremost for cars. You don't need as wide a way for cycles, and paths for cycles are usually fairly readily recognizable.

      I am generally in favor of adding cycle paths to the world, but in many cases, mixing bicycles and automobiles is insane.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:It would be... by Imrik · · Score: 1

      They started adding dedicated bike lanes around here... between the parked cars and the sidewalks. I'm not sure if they're trying to make biking safer or eliminate bikers through natural selection.

    22. Re:It would be... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I frequently bike to work, and it's jerks like you that give cyclists a bad name and cause accidents.

      Change your attitude.

    23. Re:It would be... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      About 50% of cyclists I pass are doing something stupid, from swerving all over to simply riding out in the middle of the road.

      In most places, cyclists have full use of the lane. Cyclists generally don't take advantage of that right in order to help traffic along, but when they do, they usually have a good reason for it. So, contain your road rage.

    24. Re:It would be... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In most places, cyclists have full use of the lane.

      Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about.

      So, contain your road rage.

      I haven't run over even the most inconsiderate, out-of-control, law-breaking cyclist yet.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:It would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd look nice bouncing off of my bumper and hurtling through the air.

    26. Re:It would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off my windshield you insensitive clod.

    27. Re:It would be... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I haven't run over even the most inconsiderate, out-of-control, law-breaking cyclist yet.

      With your bad attitude, it's only a matter off time. At least juries will be able to find a record of your views here.

    28. Re:It would be... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      With your bad attitude, it's only a matter off time. At least juries will be able to find a record of your views here.

      As I have repeatedly spoken against people who take violent acts against cyclists, they should serve to exonerate me if some dipshit cyclist should splatter themselves all over my hood, but I really ought to have a dash cam. I can abhor incompetent and thoughtless cyclists while still not running them over. Can you read a condemnation of such people without your knee jerking?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:It would be... by eneville · · Score: 1

      Most non-motorways predate the car, so in fact they were "made" for horses and bikes and foot traffic.

      Modern roads (as you call them, motorways) were in fact made for cars. Here's a hint: if it's paved, and it's got road markings for cars on it, it's designed first and foremost for cars. You don't need as wide a way for cycles, and paths for cycles are usually fairly readily recognizable.

      I am generally in favor of adding cycle paths to the world, but in many cases, mixing bicycles and automobiles is insane.

      Nope. You're wrong. Most roads pre-date the automobile. They were initially designed without cars in mind. However, most people wish to use their cars on them. Hence car tax was brought about to pave them.

    30. Re:It would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a cyclist, I wouldn't necessarily consider it safe to pull over to the side of a narrow twisty-road, unless I could comfortably get off the road (perhaps onto a footpath) while the cars are passing. And when I don't consider it safe for cars to pass me, I do assert my right to ride in the middle of the road to stop careless drivers from attempting it when it isn't safe. If you care more for 5 minutes of your time than a fellow human's safety, then fuck you, you selfish arsehole.

      This isn't intended as a defence of genuinely idiotic cyclists, but cycling in the middle of the lane isn't stupid, and can be justified in some situations.

    31. Re:It would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on where you are, most people on bicycles are ex-cons, drug dealers who have lost licenses to DUIs, and effeminate city dwellers.
      Are they paying the taxes? Probably, but not as much as honorable people who own property.

    32. Re:It would be... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nope. You're wrong. Most roads pre-date the automobile. They were initially designed without cars in mind. However, most people wish to use their cars on them. Hence car tax was brought about to pave them.

      It's completely irrelevant what they were used for before. I live right next to one of the original stagecoach stops for Lake County, CA. A tiny piece of that route is now the road I live on. Before it was a stagecoach route, most of it was a foot trail used by the locals — the Pomo. But the roadway and course as we know them today were selected for automobiles in the vast majority of cases. They either co-opted routes used for smaller vehicles and widened them, or in other cases outright abandoned portions of the route and re-shaped the land to suit automobiles. We don't demand the right to walk down the center of the road because the Pomo did it, we get the hell out of the middle of the road and let the cars come through at 35 mph — the default speed limit for county-maintained roads here.

      Likewise, while we do permit bicyclists to use the full lane where it's necessary, we also do not permit anyone to impede the flow of traffic. It doesn't matter if they're operating construction equipment, riding a horse, walking, or riding a bicycle. If you are impeding the natural flow of traffic, then what you are doing is illegal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    33. Re:It would be... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      America is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to automotive insanity. This idea that places outside of America are some bikers Utopia is just bullshit. Short of Amsterdam, most of Europe is not that bike friendly. Their urban roads and freeways are full of psychos in cars and trucks just like the US is.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    34. Re:It would be... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It's friday, so just go to youtube and you can see a million examples of what I'm talking about.

      Confirmation bias much? Youtube has a million examples of everyone doing stupid inconsiderate and assholey things while undertaking every activity. Though they do seem over represented by people in SUVs.

    35. Re:It would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woo! Look at me! I'm bashing America/Americans!
      (virtue signaling)

    36. Re:It would be... by emj · · Score: 1

      but I really ought to have a dash cam.

      I'm not sure it would help against your pretty sever case of confirmation bias. In my commute there is a great percentage of cars doing stupid shit that endanger other people, and there are seldom any cyclists doing that. But hey they say if you don't know who's the stupid there is a pretty high risk it's you. While I don't consider myself stupid you never know...

    37. Re:It would be... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it would help against your pretty sever case of confirmation bias. In my commute there is a great percentage of cars doing stupid shit that endanger other people, and there are seldom any cyclists doing that.

      About fifty percent of the cyclists I see on the road are doing something spectacularly stupid. These things range from riding the wrong direction to completely ignoring signals and signs. Perhaps this has to do with where I am driving, which is primarily around Napa, Lake, Sonoma, and Mendocino counties. I am very cautious around cyclists, because it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, I don't want to kill some schmuck with no appreciation for the laws of physics.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    38. Re:It would be... by inline_four · · Score: 1

      Intentionally blocking the way is obstructing traffic. Going slowly on a local road in the rightmost lane is not. Farming equipment is allowed on any such road and that stuff usually travels at roughly similar speeds as bicycles. There are not so many roads with actual minimum speed limit posted and only highways specifically restrict bicycles and farming equipment from them.

      --
      Alexey
    39. Re:It would be... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Intentionally blocking the way is obstructing traffic. Going slowly on a local road in the rightmost lane is not.

      If you have the ability to stop any place and get out of the way, as cyclists do, then yes, yes it is. It absolutely is obstructing the natural flow of traffic needlessly.

      Farming equipment is allowed on any such road and that stuff usually travels at roughly similar speeds as bicycles.

      Farming equipment is not allowed to disrupt the normal flow of traffic either. And they design the roads accordingly. They put massive shoulders on roads with any significant traffic which must also carry farm traffic, to enable it to get out of the way. Roads with less traffic simply get dashed lines (assuming they're not one-lane roads, like the one I live on) so that you can pass tractors, so that they don't disrupt traffic flow either.

      This really is not complicated. We have laws against disrupting the flow of traffic because disrupting the flow of traffic causes every kind of problem. It reduces throughput while increasing the risk of collision. And that's why cyclists who can't find the side of the road do. They want to cry about debris at the roadside, but guess what? I don't get to drive into someone else's lane to dodge debris in my lane. Buy appropriate tires and tubes, and run slime, like an adult.

      There are not so many roads with actual minimum speed limit posted and only highways specifically restrict bicycles and farming equipment from them.

      A posted minimum speed limit is not necessary to disrupt the normal flow of traffic, and be cited on that basis, so that's irrelevant, like most of your reasoning. And it doesn't matter where you are, you're not allowed to hold up traffic. And there are numerous places where you can ride a bicycle on a highway, it's freeways you're not allowed to ride on.

      You are literally wrong about everything you said in your comment.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Instead of dying in 50 years from cancer or... by jurassicbond · · Score: 1

    heart disease I'd die within 5 years from getting hit by a car or mugged/shot biking through the worst parts of the city. I think I'll take my chances with cancer unless I move somewhere that's safer for biking.

  9. Selection bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People not in good health weren't riding a bike to work in the first place. I'm currently paying over twice as much per month for rent to live near where I work in Bellevue, WA since I'm no longer healthy enough to bike to work.

    1. Re: Selection bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was the comment I was waiting on. Heart failure and cancer aren't really "let's bike to work god I feel alive just now!"style diseases.

      They are god let's stay home and have someone drive us to anywhere we need to go diseases...

    2. Re: Selection bias by hawguy · · Score: 2

      This was the comment I was waiting on. Heart failure and cancer aren't really "let's bike to work god I feel alive just now!"style diseases.

      They are god let's stay home and have someone drive us to anywhere we need to go diseases...

      My doctor recommended that my father ride a bike for exercise after his heart surgery after his second heart attack. And he did. He was no racer, but managed to ride a few miles around the neighborhood most days. I'm regular cyclist and older than my dad was after his first heart attack, and so far, I'm showing no signs of similar heart disease (though my diet is much better, so I can't attribute it to exercise alone)

      So it's not true that heart disease and cycling don't go together.

  10. And still ....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is exactly one death per person. No one lives forever.

    Get used to the idea, you ARE going to die so enjoy what you have, make other peoples lives better, and share your time with friends and family.

    1. Re:And still ....... by tepples · · Score: 1

      There is exactly one death per person.

      True, but there are between zero and one deaths during the period of this study per study subject.

    2. Re:And still ....... by PPH · · Score: 1

      There is exactly one death per person.

      So, not counting la petit mort?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:And still ....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could post that on every single article and it would be just as relevant.

  11. Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it takes you less than 2 hours to bike to work and you can avoid the freeway then sure. I'll just do my biking after work thanks.

    1. Re:Sure by eneville · · Score: 1

      Cycle faster, move closer or die younger.

  12. Causality vs correlation ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would still question the causality here.

    People with weak hearts tend not to want to cycle for obvious reasons. For people with stage 1 cancer, the only symptoms might be that they don't really feel up to cycling to work.

  13. Cost of telling her to go screw herself by tepples · · Score: 2

    I understand you think Elkim Roa might be hen-pecked. But if he* tells his wife to go screw herself, and she takes that as a hint to discover vibrating massagers, he might not get any for a while.

    * More likely

    1. Re:Cost of telling her to go screw herself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand you think Elkim Roa might be hen-pecked. But if he* tells his wife to go screw herself, and she takes that as a hint to discover vibrating massagers, he might not get any for a while.

      * More likely

      That would depend on a woman doing what she's told to do, knowing it was a man's idea. So I think he's pretty safe.

      Though I understand the stereotype of a pussy-whipped husband who gets walked all over by an emotionally dominant wife is (somehow) endearing to many Americans. In fact without it most American sitcoms would have no material at all. Truth is women tend not to respect men who have no spine, though "go fuck yourself" is probably a disproportionate response heh.

  14. On-site service; cargo by tepples · · Score: 1

    Moving closer doesn't help if it is part of your job description to visit clients' land or haul more work equipment than will fit in a reasonable bike trailer.

    1. Re:On-site service; cargo by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Moving closer doesn't help if it is part of your job description to visit clients' land or haul more work equipment than will fit in a reasonable bike trailer.

      You could commute by bike and leave your car at work if that was really what's holding you back from bike commuting.

    2. Re:On-site service; cargo by hawguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Moving closer doesn't help if it is part of your job description to visit clients' land or haul more work equipment than will fit in a reasonable bike trailer.

      The major downside: if you don't ride your bike, the public will miss getting to see you in the tight black spandex that all bikers seem to feel a compulsion to wear. The gay community in particular will be disappointed. In the name of tolerance you should not disappoint the gay community. Therefore car travel is a bigoted idea and supports hatred of LGBT people. So you see, you must bike, for the good of the society!

      It's lycra, not spandex, and few commuters wear full-on bike gear. Most people wear the same clothes they wear at work. It's the recreational riders that are more likely to wear bike gear... and there's a good reason for it -- similar to why few people wear jeans to lift weights at the gym.

    3. Re: On-site service; cargo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you expect to be taken seriously when you demonstrate your ignore and small mind with your bigoted homophobic comments?

    4. Re:On-site service; cargo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moving closer doesn't help if it is part of your job description to visit clients' land or haul more work equipment than will fit in a reasonable bike trailer.

      The major downside: if you don't ride your bike, the public will miss getting to see you in the tight black spandex that all bikers seem to feel a compulsion to wear. The gay community in particular will be disappointed. In the name of tolerance you should not disappoint the gay community. Therefore car travel is a bigoted idea and supports hatred of LGBT people. So you see, you must bike, for the good of the society!

      It's lycra, not spandex, and few commuters wear full-on bike gear. Most people wear the same clothes they wear at work. It's the recreational riders that are more likely to wear bike gear... and there's a good reason for it -- similar to why few people wear jeans to lift weights at the gym.

      Lycra not spandex? Ah well, please pardon me.

      Yes, but few strength training exercises require sticking your ass up in the air and waving it back and forth like that.

    5. Re:On-site service; cargo by telchine · · Score: 1

      It's lycra, not spandex

      Spandex is the American term, Lyra's a British term. Elastane is the European term.

    6. Re:On-site service; cargo by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      I used to bike to work (~30 minutes, about 100m of altitude gain) in my normal clothes.

      Not any more. First, it wears out normal clothes at a much faster pace and they become smelly faster.

      Bike wear makes for a more relaxed ride.

      I don't give a shit what others think. Especially if they are easily offended.

      But then, 30% of the inhabitants in the city I work have no car at all.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    7. Re: On-site service; cargo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No overnight parking allowed.

    8. Re:On-site service; cargo by minogully · · Score: 1

      Here's the main reason why you'd want to wear special bike gear to work... it's quick dry. Quick dry clothing allows your sweat to evaporate faster. Not allowing your sweat to sit on your body prevents you from getting smelly at work.

    9. Re:On-site service; cargo by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      It's not obviously practical for everyone, but I'm sure the same health benefits would be found from routine recreational cycling. My largest issue was just getting bored on my bike ride, but using an app like Strava or playing a game like Ingress/Pokemon Go definitely changed things. The main thing is to not get discouraged when you first start - but after a week or so of regular cycling the barrier to just getting out there and doing it quickly gets considerably lower.

    10. Re:On-site service; cargo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      similar to why few people wear jeans to lift weights at the gym.

      Really, you sure that isn't because the gyms ban wearing jeans, or maybe that's just my one? I think I was told something about it being bad for the seats on the machines.

    11. Re:On-site service; cargo by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but few strength training exercises require sticking your ass up in the air and waving it back and forth like that.

      Straight leg dead lift. bent rows, and back hyperextension off the top of my head. And while we're on the subject of distracting and embarrassing, there's always leg abduction.

      Anyhow, people are jerks toward anyone who gets serious about anything, whether it's biking, power lifting, or building electronics. You're supposed to be normal, not exceptional. That makes it easy to be a sanctimonious prig toward people who like things you don't have what it takes to try.

      Ever go to a gym where there's rules about making too much noise because you'll scare the casuals? It's stupid. There's a woman in my gym, an ex-marine, who can dead lift over 2 1/2 her body weight, which for a woman puts her in the elite range. When I walk into the gym and she's doing it, I have to walk out because she sounds like a harpy ripping the head off a dragon. But it's my problem, not hers. That's what it takes for her to do her thing, and I'm not going to make her feel bad about it because it's awesome. Literally.

      Celebrate people who dare to look, sound, or even be ridiculous. Even if it bothers you, that's not the same thing as harming you. The people who do harm are the self-appointed conformity police. The ones who automatically go after anyone who doesn't appear normal. "Normal" is must another word for "mediocre".

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:On-site service; cargo by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Personally I'm just happy when my jeans don't get caught in the chain causing me to have a horrible bloody accident.

    13. Re:On-site service; cargo by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Personally I'm just happy when my jeans don't get caught in the chain causing me to have a horrible bloody accident.

      These days I use my bike sock. I got sick of ruining a number of pairs of pants by having them touch an oily chain, so I extend a sock (doesn't work if you wear short socks) over the bottom hem of the pants leg to keep it from flapping all over.

    14. Re:On-site service; cargo by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      You could, ummm... uhh... just Uber/Lyft around from work.

      Ok, I got nothing.

      But really, are they reimbursing you at all for the cost in gas and wear and tear for the use of your private vehicle for work purposes? That sounds like you're being taken advantage of otherwise.

    15. Re:On-site service; cargo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do all the ads plastered all over the special bike gear do ? make it faster ?

    16. Re:On-site service; cargo by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Are you really, really sure that you want to see me in black spandex?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  15. Correlation is not causality by markdavis · · Score: 5, Informative

    >"Cycling To Work Can Cut Cancer and Heart Disease"

    Nope, that is not the article. Look at the title of the paper:

    "Association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: prospective cohort study"

    *ASSOCIATION*, which is another way of saying correlation. It is not a study of causality. This proves nothing. Perhaps people who bike to work also eat better. Perhaps they have more income. Perhaps the other parts of their life have lower stress. They can't possibly eliminate ALL other possibilities by "adjusting for" because those are just assumptions.

    Of course, it is common sense that exercising regularly will cut your chance of heart disease and possibly cancer. But the title of the posting implies there is causality where that is not proven in the article.

    By the way, I bicycle to work almost every day.... but it is only like 2/3 of a mile round trip :)

    1. Re:Correlation is not causality by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      It's also possible that the ride itself reduces stress and that has a beneficial effect on the immune system.

      My main concern from cycling to work is being able to have a shower when I get there so I don't stink everyone else out. I used to ride to work when it was close enough and now I am close enough again it is something Ive been looking forward to do to improve my fitness after recovering from injury.

      The biggest issue I've had with cycling to work is some drivers. They approach from behind and don't realize that sometimes I'm swerving to avoid holes or other obstacles they would just drive over. Then there are some real jerks. Once when riding to work a driver positioned the front wheel of his vehicle about a metre or so from the back wheel of my bike and maintained that position while I was trying to avoid obstacles. Probably not the worst story out there but it shows that some people will menace you for riding a bike for no other reason than they can.

      So I think the unmentioned thing in this article is all the bike riders that have suffered some injury because of someone driving a car and how careful you have to be so you don't end up mangled by one.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    2. Re:Correlation is not causality by quantaman · · Score: 1

      >"Cycling To Work Can Cut Cancer and Heart Disease"

      Nope, that is not the article. Look at the title of the paper:

      "Association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: prospective cohort study"

      *ASSOCIATION*, which is another way of saying correlation. It is not a study of causality. This proves nothing. Perhaps people who bike to work also eat better. Perhaps they have more income. Perhaps the other parts of their life have lower stress.

      Or more directly, they're healthy enough to bike to work.

      I agree that exercise contains huge health benefits, but there's also a huge selection bias at work. Seriously unhealthy people probably can't handle the rigours of cycling to work.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    3. Re:Correlation is not causality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, cancer is one of the conditions they considered, and I was commuting a 25km round trip to work when I had cancer. The cancer had initially developed before I was cycling. While undergoing radiotherapy I rode in from work each day for the treatment session, and that was actually quite convenient. So you can be living with potentially deadly conditions, while still being physically capable of cycling reasonable distances.

    4. Re:Correlation is not causality by emj · · Score: 1

      Or more directly, they're healthy enough to bike to work.

      I agree that exercise contains huge health benefits, but there's also a huge selection bias at work. Seriously unhealthy people probably can't handle the rigours of cycling to work.

      Usually if you read the study you will find that they have already figured this out and measure it, these kind of simple objections are often accounted for. Beside that the percentage of people that can handle a 20-60 minute bicycle commute is so large that it doesn't really matter, everyone I know can handle it with a few exceptional exceptions.

      I'm assuming a lot of stuff about this discussion though, I've not read the study nor the article, but similar papers on the subject usually have this in their models so...

    5. Re:Correlation is not causality by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Or more directly, they're healthy enough to bike to work.

      I agree that exercise contains huge health benefits, but there's also a huge selection bias at work. Seriously unhealthy people probably can't handle the rigours of cycling to work.

      Usually if you read the study you will find that they have already figured this out and measure it, these kind of simple objections are often accounted for.

      My bad, from reading the parent comment I assume this was just reporting the correlation, and made no attempt to adjust for confounders. But glancing over the actual study they did (though there's always the question of how effected the correction was).

      Beside that the percentage of people that can handle a 20-60 minute bicycle commute is so large that it doesn't really matter, everyone I know can handle it with a few exceptional exceptions.

      I'm assuming a lot of stuff about this discussion though, I've not read the study nor the article, but similar papers on the subject usually have this in their models so...

      I'm not so certain about that. There's about 40 people in my workplace, which skews fairly young. I can think of at least 3 whom would be seriously challenged by such a commute, mostly due to obesity.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    6. Re:Correlation is not causality by immortalcrab · · Score: 0

      You know that proving causation is a darn difficult thing to do and most science (specially statistics basic science) doesn't even attempt to do so right? and that the "correlation doesn't imply causation" mantra means that statistics based science is fallible, not that it is entirely useless when it doesn't help to rationalize you laziness, right?

    7. Re:Correlation is not causality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried bicycling to work, but my wife didn't like me leaving the bike in the hallway.

  16. I live in a major metropolitian by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure the lungfuls of car exhaust will counteract that benefit. Hell, I knew a truck driver who had his chest cracked open looking for problems only to find it was just the build up of decades of soot from sitting in traffic so much.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I live in a major metropolitian by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the lungfuls of car exhaust will counteract that benefit

      Hell, I used to bike to work daily. I had a 1/2 mile stretch that I prayed to god some dumass wouldn't turn me into a red smear on the road. Following that I had a 1/2 mile longass steepass climb I had to do.

      / 20 years ago
      // knees gave out on me :(
      /// traded my manual transmission for an auto, glad I did so

    2. Re:I live in a major metropolitian by hawguy · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure the lungfuls of car exhaust will counteract that benefit. Hell, I knew a truck driver who had his chest cracked open looking for problems only to find it was just the build up of decades of soot from sitting in traffic so much.

      That's not true in most cities:

      https://www.theguardian.com/en...

      “Even in Delhi, one of the most polluted cities in the world – with pollution levels ten times those in London – people would need to cycle over five hours per week before the pollution risks outweigh the health benefits.

  17. Healthier, but is the increase in trauma worth it? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    I have a friend who has no car in a city without much transit - bikes everywhere he needs to go. Despite pushing seventy years of age, he is in top physical condition.

    Except that roughly every five years he gets nailed by some clueless driver wandering into the bike lane, pulling out of a mall entrance, or running a light. On each occasion, the medics have had to reassemble him from traces of DNA found at the accident scene. Somehow he survives, and after a few months in the hospital gets back on a bike again. It's fortunate that he never flies, because by now his body is mostly pins and braces.

    There is no way you will get me on one of those things.

  18. Want to live longer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.

    CAPTCHA: bloody

  19. Re:Healthier, but is the increase in trauma worth by dfghjk · · Score: 1

    That seems highly unlikely. No one suffers repeated catastrophic accidents that require months of hospital care, much less over decades while continuing the same behavior.

    Keep making up stories to make yourself feel better about your laziness.

  20. Cause of death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in Maryland you might reduce your risk of cancer and heart disease while increasing the absolute certainty of being run over by a jackass "driving" a car.

    I'll just continue drinking myself to death, thanks.

  21. I forgot about that by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the cars driving like maniacs. Do the drivers in your city drift into the bike lane while making right turns too?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I forgot about that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck bykfaqqs ... all they can do is turn a perfectly able, innocent driver into a killa. Crash into a rattlesnake, bikr-bitch and die.

    2. Re:I forgot about that by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      the cars driving like maniacs. Do the drivers in your city drift into the bike lane while making right turns too?

      In this state you're supposed to merge into the bike lane before making a right turn. Our drivers drift into the bike lane when they're on the straightaways looking at the scenery, which is a special feature hereabouts.

    3. Re:I forgot about that by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      the cars driving like maniacs. Do the drivers in your city drift into the bike lane while making right turns too?

      Mine do, I once hit a car (fortunately this was all low-speed and I had a chance to brake so as not to hit it at full speed) when a car passed me to turn right in front of me into a driveway. The exuse he gave was "But I had my turn signal on."

  22. ooops .. 'tuther way round by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Folks with superior natural immunity to heart-attack and cancer express an un-natural affection for spinning rubber wheels and leather bicycle seats. Just so happens ..... might as well have another martini - - dry, very dry - -

  23. "We.. are the cyclists." (Monkey Dust) by sheramil · · Score: 1
  24. I'm a cyclist but... by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 1

    ....I work from home....d'oh! Good thing I try to bike lots otherwise. ;)

  25. who are cyclists? by Goldsmith · · Score: 2

    People who cycle to work are people who:
    1) Don't need to personally take care of their children in an emergency
    2) Live close to work
    3) Have flexible working hours and standards
    4) Have a nice enough job to support an office and a place to put a bike

    In short, cyclists have a lower stress life. I would argue very strongly that cycling to work is the result of a lower stress life, not the cause. It is not a lifestyle that most of us can afford for reasons that have nothing to do with cycling.

    1. Re:who are cyclists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 2) Live close to work ... but not TOO close. Exceptions:

      2' a) Work at home
      2' b) Work 1-4 city blocks from home... Might as well walk.

    2. Re:who are cyclists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you don't cycle to your work at home job?
      Professional much?

      I bet you leave your home office door unlocked as well and play with your pets while typing up those spreadsheets. You monster.

    3. Re:who are cyclists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would argue that #2 is the only relevant one.
      #4 would actually skew the result the other way around. If you have an office job instead of an active one, that will lead to less exercise in it self, which I assume to cause more disease.

    4. Re:who are cyclists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live 6 miles from my work and cycle. So do many co-workers with children. I also don't make enough money to afford a car (very far from it). But I also live in Copenhagen where infrastructure favors bicycles.

      I really don't understand what taking care of children has to do with cars? I cannot see any connection there at all. I also don't see how cycling is an expensive lifestyle when a bike costs next to nothing, doesn't consume gasoline, and can be parked almost anywhere for free.

    5. Re:who are cyclists? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      I sometimes bike to work. I don't need (3) flexible working hours. On a bike, there's no trouble getting there at exactly the right time, unlike when I take the car and have to deal with unpredictable traffic. Also, (4) I just put my bike on the car parking lot, against a fence, lamp post, wall, or just in a motorcycle spot. And as far as emergencies regarding my children, it doesn't really matter if I'm an hour away on bike, or an hour by car, or an hour by train.

    6. Re: who are cyclists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who cycle to work are people who:
      1) Taxi in an emergency
      2) Live close to work(up to 10km is OK even for a fat guy like me)
      3) Doesn't wait on traffic jams, so they can plan the time they need to leave
      4) Have a nice enough job to support an office and a place to put a bike

    7. Re:who are cyclists? by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Note, this is all based on the US, I'm not sure about the societal differences in Denmark.

      Living 6 miles from work is still fairly close. As for children, parents often have to personally deal with emergencies. This will usually mean a similar distance to their commute to get to where their child is and once there, they need to be able to transport their child. As for expensive, the GP was saying it was a lifestyle that most of us couldn't do, not that we can't afford it financially.

    8. Re:who are cyclists? by Goldsmith · · Score: 2

      Yeah, you clearly have a different way of life than I do, and you obviously have made great choices for you regarding where you live and what you do.

      The idea that work is one place, where you're not asked to go to other places during the day, or help shuttle people around, is quite a nice thing. Maybe "flexible working hours" is not the right phrase, but something more like "flexible work requirements." I run my own business, which is great for me, but not for biking. It's not ok for me to put off going to a client to swap out hardware, or to not go meet a potential investor who's across town and is available to meet on short notice. My car carries spare work hardware, kid's snacks and toys, and a backup suit. It all gets used pretty regularly.

      I have biked to work at a previous job, It was absolutely wonderful, and I loved it. My personal and professional ambitions grew, and I chose to sacrifice an ability to be car-free. My point is simply that the lack of biking is not what generates stress in life, it's the stress of life that prevents biking.

    9. Re:who are cyclists? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      1) Don't need to personally take care of their children in an emergency

      The thing about emergencies is they can generally be accommodated and are incredibly rare. Don't live your life based around emergencies.

      2) Live close to work

      Well that goes without saying. Why would you want to commute more than 20km by car. Frigging nightmare.

      3) Have flexible working hours and standards

      Err no. Standard 9-5ers have no problem with bicycles.

      4) Have a nice enough job to support an office and a place to put a bike

      Err no. My bike gets chained to a lamppost in the street, and I work in an open floorplan.

      You have some very very strange requirements for cycling to work. I can only assume you've never actually looked into how it works.

    10. Re:who are cyclists? by RedShoeRider · · Score: 1

      1) Incorrect. You have an "oh shit" plan in place with family friends/daycare/friends parents in that case. If I have to get home NOW and I'm on bicycle, I have co-workers who like me and have a car.
      2) Incorrect. 20 miles, each way.
      3) Incorrect. Fixed hours and business casual / business formal attire.
      4) Incorrect. Bicycle is locked up outside.

      My work isn't different from 80% of people on here, and I'm no special superhero. I make bicycle commuting work because I want it to work for me. If I had an 8am meeting with you, you'd have no idea if I rode in that day or not, other than I tend to have a larger cup of coffee on riding days.

      --

      Chris Knight is my hero.

    11. Re:who are cyclists? by rune2 · · Score: 1

      Not all of those things are true or necessary for many people and some of them just amount to a poor excuse not to cycle.

      According to the U.S. department of transportation the majority (68%) of commuters live within 15 miles of their workplace. That is plenty doable on a bike. Personally I bike to work every day and I commute about 6 miles (one-way). Proximity to work for me was a benefit which I considered when job hunting and which influenced my decision to work for my current employer. As was bike parking. For that matter not every business supports car parking either. Is that the fault of the employee or the business? Would you want to work for an employer that didn't have car parking? Would that influence your decision to work there or not? For many people I'm sure it would. In my case my employer is also located close to a major train and subway station which I'm sure has benefited them in attracting talented employees for whom that is a benefit. When businesses have to compete with other business to attract talented employees they tend to consider things like that.

      I usually work 10 am - 6 pm just to avoid the worst of the traffic gridlock but other than that they are pretty standard working hours. Yes I work in an office that supports biking and healthy lifestyle. But so do many people. Businesses are slowly figuring out that healthier workers who exercise more are less likely to have health problems which require time off and medical leave etc. A healthy employee is usually a happier employee. Exercise can help to reduce stress but let me tell you that having car traffic blasting past you at 3 times your speed like 2 feet away from you is certainly not low stress! (thankfully for me that is only in one particular area)

      I don't have children but I'm sure that certainly anyone who did and who biked to work would probably contingency plans for support for their children in an emergency. Worse come to worse there's always a taxi or Uber etc.

      Note that in some cases cycling to work can actually be faster than driving there (in congested, gridlocked urban areas for example). Cyclists can go lots of places that cars can't like bike lanes, trails, alleys etc so as a result they also don't get caught in gridlocked traffic as easily. This is certainly the case for me.

      For those who would find going up steep hills a challenge note that you can also get pedelec e-bikes which look like a normal bike but have an electric motor to assist with going up steep hills.

      One great benefit of cycling is the low cost. There's no paying for gas, insurance, maintenance, tolls, parking or the million other things that make car ownership a complete money-pit.

    12. Re:who are cyclists? by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

      I have biked to work, it was great.

      My comments have to do with why I no longer bike to work.

      My point (and it's borne out by many of these responses) is that a stress free life allows biking to work, not the other way around. You clearly don't understand what I'm talking about, but that's great for you, enjoy it!

    13. Re:who are cyclists? by rune2 · · Score: 2

      Yes cars are basically a requirement for some jobs and lifestyles depending on one's circumstances but some people don't even bother to consider that it could be an good alternative mode of transportation for them and which can also be a good form of exercise. What better way to exercise regularly then to make it part of your routine and your lifestyle. It's fairly low impact. As you say not everyone is in a position to do that but as the article says for those who can do it it can have a positive impact on their overall health. Lack of exercise may just be contributing to that stress you speak of. How many health conditions are directly caused by a sedentary lifestyle? It's a slow and quiet killer.... Choosing to drive instead of cycling can be a sacrifice too. More time driving can sometimes mean more time commuting (when stuck in traffic etc or in the case of a longer commute distance), with less free personal time, less time to exercise etc. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. You don't have to give up driving entirely in order to cycle once in a while etc. Many people choose to either cycle or drive depending on their schedule and what their needs are that particular day etc.

      I don't think that commuting by bike is completely stress-free (depending on where you bike of course). In urban areas it can be quite stressful at times in fact. Especially in areas where there has been little to no consideration for cyclists in the overall traffic plan. That can put cyclists in dangerous or unsafe conditions which certainly is stressful. It's not perfect....Things like extreme weather can be a bit unpleasant when cycling too (although I see plenty of people cycling in all kinds of weather... rain or snow etc).

      Sometimes I think cycling can actually be a great last-mile commuting solution for some people in certain areas. i.e. For someone working downtown in a heavily congested area instead of fighting traffic and fighting for street parking (or paying for expensive parking) a folding bike could be used to allow you to park the car in a less-congested area with better/cheaper parking options (for example) and then to bike the last couple of miles etc. (or it could be used when getting off a bus or train in an area with poor transit coverage). I did that myself for a job one time. At the time the last 10 percent of my commute was a total pain in the ass to get to by transit so I got a folding bike. I took one bus like 90 percent of the way to work and while I rode the bike I stuck the folding bike under the seat. Then I cycled the last 10 percent of the way. Some cities have bike-sharing networks which can be used for short trips like that and they can be faster than walking and far more convenient than either transit or driving for that kind of trip.

    14. Re:who are cyclists? by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

      Man, I thought this was a pretty simple concept, obviously I was wrong. My post comes from my experiences biking to work, and then deciding that other things were more important, so I stopped. These are really simple things like picking my kids up from school, or being able to meet at a client's business. Yes, I absolutely could have found other people to handle those things, but it was more important to me to be able to rely upon myself alone in those situations than it was to bike to work.

      The point of TFA was that biking lowers stress. I think that accepting stress into your life reduces your ability to bike.

    15. Re:who are cyclists? by Bruno+Braganca · · Score: 1

      Well... 1) I don't have children yet, but I have a friend who does and commutes on a bike regularly, when he needs to get his daughter somewhere, he uses the car. 2) I don't, I live 21km from work (13 miles) with a lot of uphills, sometimes I have to go on client's offices and I go on a bike, take a shower there, easily. 3) Not necessarily, when I rarely go to work by car, which I hate and almost instantly regret, I have to leave home earlier in order to arrive in time, It takes more time by car than by bike to go to work, due to hellish traffic congestions. 4) I have, but it's not mandatory, you can leave your bike locked in the street.

    16. Re:who are cyclists? by Nerdasor · · Score: 0

      People who cycle to work are people who: 1) Don't need to personally take care of their children in an emergency 2) Live close to work 3) Have flexible working hours and standards 4) Have a nice enough job to support an office and a place to put a bike

      In short, cyclists have a lower stress life. I would argue very strongly that cycling to work is the result of a lower stress life, not the cause. It is not a lifestyle that most of us can afford for reasons that have nothing to do with cycling.

      1)OK, my wife works closer and we have friends though 2)BS, I live 20 miles from work and have been riding 3-4 times a week for 15 years. Now I have an electric bike to help cope with the 10 hours a week in the saddle. 3)That's not really true. This place I work used to require a tie. I packed a neat outfit in a backpack for many years. 4)Lots of people park a bike on the street and change in the bathroom. I have a full time job, two kids including a kid in a travel team, I mean, it's not by necessity a lower stress life, though I deal well with my stress, which isn't onerous.

  26. Re:Healthier, but is the increase in trauma worth by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    My exercise is mountain hiking two days a week. Yesterday was a nine-mile day with 2000' of elevation gain.

  27. Weather by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    It's going to be 90 degrees next week. How am I supposed to bicycle to work without suffering a heat stroke? Then when I do arrive at work dripping with sweat and smelling bad, what am I supposed to do? Around here we have hills with 40 degree slopes. Good luck biking up that half mile.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Weather by emj · · Score: 1

      It's going to be 90 degrees next week.

      Best way to keep cool is to generate your own breeze.

    2. Re:Weather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err have you heard of washing ? You take water & soap and clean yourself. Dead easy to do.

    3. Re:Weather by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary says you can cut the risk of cancer and heart disease... if you die from heat stroke, then mission accomplished, cancer and heart disease can't get you when you've already died from heat stroke.

      Or you could get hit by a bus while bicycling... no cancer risk when you are splattered across a highway.... if you've got 40 degree slopes you might also have cliff faces, you jumping off one of them is associated with a serious reduction in cancer.

    4. Re:Weather by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      40 degree slopes? Bullshit. Steepest street I've ever encountered is 35% (19 degrees)

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
  28. Fucking scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They spend billions of dollars conducting these bullshit scientific studies to prove the obvious. They would be off conducting a scientific study to find out why 98% of science is bullshit. Scientists in the olden days used to study how the body and the universe around them worked. Today they spend their time conducting meta studies to find weak and implausible correlations between things like coffee, brushing your teeth and ferret feces. They other thing they like to do is conduct survey's on what percentage of climate scientist think all climate change is caused by men.

    1. Re:Fucking scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it obvious that cycling to work is associated with very large benefits but walking to work is not?
      I ask because that's one of the findings in the study, and it was not at all obvious to me.

  29. Maybe Only the Fit Cycle to Work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, it takes determination and great physical fitness to cycle to work year round... it gets pretty cold and wet in the UK.

    So it probably means that only the fittest people will commute by bicycle to begin with, and the most fit are the ones that can handle the longest bicycle commute and that's why they have the smallest chance of dying from cancer. SO... it's because they're the fittest, they can bike the farthest, and therefore because of their good physical health, they don't die of heart attacks as often, etc, etc not the fact that they bike to work.

    If you make a guy that's got a heart issue bike 30 miles to work, I'd say that dude will screw up the "death" statistics.

  30. The real conclusion of the research is.... by rew · · Score: 1

    They probably just proved a correlation between riding the bike to work and "less heartattacks".

    This could very well be caused by the (already) healthy people choosing to ride the bike to work....

  31. Cycling To Work Can Get You KILLED!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    * Young architect, 32, killed after being hit by a coach while riding to work is second cyclist to die on London’s roads in 12 hours[1]

    * Moira Gemmill: Lorry driver acquitted over cyclist killed in London road accident[2]

    * Italian waitress, 32, killed in Battersea cycling to work at her new job[3]

    * Cyclist Steve Wightwick killed in 'hit-and-run' on way to work[4]

    Etc., etc., etc.

    ---

    [1]: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2812605/young-architect-32-killed-after-being-hit-by-a-coach-while-riding-to-work-is-second-cyclist-to-die-on-londons-roads-in-12-hours/

    [2]: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2812605/young-architect-32-killed-after-being-hit-by-a-coach-while-riding-to-work-is-second-cyclist-to-die-on-londons-roads-in-12-hours/

    [3]: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/italian-waitress-32-killed-in-battersea-cycling-to-work-at-her-new-job-a3378761.html

    [4]: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-killed-in-hitandrun-on-way-to-work-a3413246.html

  32. Buses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember seeing a bus crash in to a cyclist once.
    The bus lost.

    Turns out he was an Olympian.
    Moral of the story? Don't fuck with Olympians.

    1. Re:Buses by ChoosyBeggar · · Score: 1

      Funny, I crashed into a bus with my bicycle once..

  33. Biking To Work == Suicide by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    While I might have gotten away with the 7 mile bike ride to work in Indianapolis on days without snow and ice, with straight roads on flat land, around here in Virginia I wouldn't have gotten beyond about 2 years on the 15 miles to work where the shortest distance road was the 2nd-most dangerous in the county. With lots of sharp crests and turns, I'd have been hit and knocked into the woods sooner or later. But by using a car, I drove those roads for 15 years and only came close to getting offed a couple times. The aforementioned 2nd-dangerous road claimed several lives and really maimed many other people over that time frame. Bikes are, at least around here, a worse choice than smoking, tantamount to choosing suicide.

  34. "can" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any post with "can" or "might" in it should be outlawed.

  35. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it must be great cycling to work on rainy england, with englishman driving on the wrong side of the road

    amazing, how can i sit here and not be doing that, i must be crazy

  36. I bike. Never owned a car ... by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    ... and I'm usually judged 7-12 years younger than I actually am (47). I even feel that way too. Given, I also dance a lot. But I combine my biking with PT, so that evens it out.

    I offen get angry seeing avalanches of SUVs and full sized cars with only one Person in them. Germanys cities are clogged to the Brink with Cars and it's a freakin' Pita for everybody. We even start seeing the push for larger Bike Infrastructure at federal Level ... two decades or so too late imho.

    Everybody I know who uses the bike as a main means of transport is a healthier happier person for it, including myself. We have too many cars. We need less better cars and caresharing at national level. And a private car limitation for cities.
    Everything would improve. ... Probably even peoples sexlives.

    My 2 eurocents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:I bike. Never owned a car ... by immortalcrab · · Score: 0

      People who commute alone in cars are grossly egotistic, their sex lives are strictly masturbatory, even if they have partners.

    2. Re:I bike. Never owned a car ... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm out of shape and don't exercise nearly as much as I should. Since I started dying my hair, I look something like fifteen years younger than my age. I attribute it to my skin oil, which gave me horrible acne as a teenager and beyond but seems to keep my skin looking better now.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  37. It will prevent desease - you're dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't even feel save driving to work with all the jerks on the road. Biking surely would prevent me ever getting cancer or heart disease because I'd be dead within a few days.

  38. Re:Healthier, but is the increase in trauma worth by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    That seems highly unlikely. No one suffers repeated catastrophic accidents that require months of hospital care, much less over decades while continuing the same behavior.

    I know motorcyclists who fit the description. I knew a guy who is a fucking father who got creamed on CA 9 by a friend who wasn't paying attention, came across the line and hit him head-on. He went right back to riding like a dipshit. He's lucky he didn't leave his son without a dad, the inconsiderate prick. Some people cannot be taught a lesson at any price. Perhaps both of these guys suffered severe brain damage in their first accident.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  39. Give that man a research grant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being fit and healthy contributes to being fit and healthy! Well tickle my nethers I'd have never guessed!

  40. accidents, pollution by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    First of all, the idea that you can reliably remove other factors from such data is bogus. The population of people who can and want to bike to work is too different from the population who can't or don't want to. There is likely massive self-selection, for example, for locations that have low pollution, for the simple reason that biking in high pollution areas is no fun.

    But that's not even the major problem. Biking to work may improve your cardiovascular health and reduce your cancer risk, but it ups your risk of a fatal accident by an order of magnitude. It's likely even worse for commuters since, unlike leisure biking, when commuting by bike, you often have to use the bike even when conditions are bad.

  41. Bike for groceries, if not to work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the line is quickly blurring for what is a bicycle and what is a motorcycle.

    And the statistic of emergencies is, children sentvto public schools rather than Christian private school, every problem is an emergency response.

  42. only works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will only work well if there is are showers at works. You can build up a nice sweat during a vigorous cycling. And did the study take into account the possibility of increase deaths due to cycling like accidents?

  43. It's very safe by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    if you have a large vehicle with lots of safety features (most notably the one that forces you to slow down in turns so your SUV doesn't tip over). Now, if you're in an economy car hit by one of those SUVs...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  44. Safety has left cycling a long time ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coincidentally, Michele Scarponi, a well-known veteran of 15 seasons in professional bicycle road racing, died today while out on a training ride, hit by a light truck that failed to yield to traffc signs. Just a few days ago, Scarponi won a stage at the Tour of the Trentino Alps and Team Astana annouced he will be their designated "ace" at the famous Giro d'Italia three-week race in May, a big suprise considering his age of 37. All that success and a few days later his twin kids are orphans.

    By the way, the reason Scarponi was designated as his teams's Giro ace was the crash of his young columbian super-star teammate, who crushed kneecaps so badly as to be out of most of the 2017 season. Similarly, the young upcoming italian cycling star Fabio Aru will 99% likely miss the 100th instance of Giro, due to falling and suffering badly injured knees. Other that a light-weight plastic foam helmet (which took decades and many deaths to force it onto their heads) muscle-powered cyclists have no crash protection whatsoever, no kidney, knee, collar-bone, etc. armour or airbag, even though body airbags have been available for motorcycle riders for years. Even when they don't break a bone, sliding falls are common and the resulting "road rash" is extremely painful for weeks, as well as risky for tetanus infection.

    In the words of currently reigning road racing juggernaut, Mr. Peter Sagan of Slovakia: safety has left cycling long ago... He must know, since he also crashed very badly during a cobble classic race this spring: a spectator left her wind jacket on the railing and his handlebar got entangled on it.

  45. Everyone can be healthier. by emj · · Score: 1

    This could very well be caused by the (already) healthy people choosing to ride the bike to work....

    Health it's something you have to maintain, no one is healthy by default and it doesn't really take much to become healthy.

    There are very few people who are not fit enough to bicycle.

    1. Re:Everyone can be healthier. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Health it's something you have to maintain, no one is healthy by default and it doesn't really take much to become healthy.

      This suggests to me that you have no real experience with illness. Depending on circumstances, it can take a lot of effort and resources to become less unhealthy. If you can enjoy good health, do so. It can go really fast.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  46. But increases overall mortality risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't being on the road one of the biggest risks we take, and more so on bikes? It might actually _decrease_ overall life expectancy just from the added daily risks taken.

  47. Yes but what about the increase in anal cancer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I'm ever elected dictator of the world, wearing spandex and riding a bike over the age of 25 will be grounds for death by firing squad.

  48. Semper fi by tepples · · Score: 1

    There's a woman in my gym, an ex-marine

    Did you mean "retired marine"? Because "ex-marine" makes it sound like her discharge from the corps was less than honorable.

    1. Re:Semper fi by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      A marine that serves a 4 year term straight out of HS would be a "retired marine" at age 22? That sounds stupid. I don't see anything dishonorable about being an ex marine. If you want to be formal maybe "former marine?"

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    2. Re:Semper fi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the acceptable nomenclature is "former Marine." A Marine wouldn't be retired unless they'd been in for at least 20-30 years.